Law US 2020 census will be printed without citizenship question

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Article
The Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.

The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question's addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA).

The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's liberal wing in delivering the court's opinion.



Roberts wrote "that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of [the Department of Justice's] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA."

"Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross] made and the rationale he provided."

Roberts pointed to evidence showing that Ross, whose department oversees the census, intended to include a citizenship question on the census "about a week into his tenure, but it contains no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement in connection with that project."



And he noted that the Justice Department didn't indicate any interest in the citizenship data until contacted by Commerce officials, and that the evidence "suggests that DOJ's interest was directed more to helping the Commerce Department than to securing the data."

"Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision," Roberts wrote.

"In the Secretary's telling, Commerce was simply acting on a routine data request from another agency. Yet the materials before us indicate that Commerce went to great lengths to elicit the request from DOJ (or any other willing agency)," he continued. "And unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale-the sole stated reason-seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency's priorities and decisionmaking process."



However, the chief justice said that the decision to add the citizenship question was not "substantively invalid."

"But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably," Roberts said. "What was provided here was more of a distraction."

While Trump officials had pointed to the VRA as reason to add the citizenship question, critics argued that asking about citizenship status would lead to an undercount of the total population. Census data is used for items like drawing congressional districts and allocating federal funds to states, and opponents said an inaccurate population count would harm Americans and cause some to not receive needed funds.



Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan, the liberal members of the court, joined on the part of Roberts's opinion opposing the question.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

In a dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that, "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."

"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."

Groups that had challenged the citizenship question's addition to the census in court quickly celebrated the ruling.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state had led the lawsuit presented before the Supreme Court, said that because of Thursday's ruling "the census will remain a tool for delivering on our government's promise of fairness and equity, and states, like New York, will not be shortchanged out of critical resources or political representation."

"Our democracy withstood this challenge, but make no mistake, many threats continue to lie ahead from the Trump administration and we will not stop fighting. Now, more than ever, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, and everyday people need us to stand firm in our fight for justice. After all, everyone counts, and therefore, everyone must be counted."

The ruling is handed down as the Commerce Department says it has a deadline of June 30 - Sunday - to start printing census materials.

And it comes as another lawsuit challenging the question plays out in federal court in Maryland.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a district judge in Maryland could review whether there was a discriminatory intent behind the question's addition, in light of new evidence filed in the lawsuit. That opens the door for the judge to potentially block the question on those grounds, as it's a different legal question than the one presented to the Supreme Court.

That new evidence pertains to late Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller, as documents were recently uncovered from Hofeller's hard drives as part of a separate lawsuit in North Carolina that indicate he played a previously undisclosed role in the orchestration of the citizenship question.

The documents indicate that Hofeller conducted an unpublished study in 2015 that found asking about citizenship would help Republicans in redistricting, while hurting Latinx communities and Democrats.

It also suggests that Hofeller may have helped in the drafting of a memo used by the Trump administration to argue for the citizenship question. And emails also show that a Census Bureau staffer was in touch with Hofeller about the citizenship question back in 2015.

Documents relating to Hofeller's role have been filed in a pair of separate lawsuits challenging the citizenship question, in federal court in New York and Maryland. The New York lawsuit was the case under consideration by the Supreme Court

The ACLU has notified the Supreme Court of the evidence. And it requested that the justices send the case back down to a lower court, to allow new evidence to be officially added to the lawsuit - a motion the court is scheduled to discuss during a private conference Thursday.

But the Trump administration asked the justices to rule on whether the addition of the question violates equal protection claims, in an effort to preempt any action out of a lower court.

Groups challenging the citizenship question in federal court in Maryland also requested late Wednesday that District Judge George Hazel issue a preliminary injunction by Friday to block the question from appearing on the census.

Hazel, an Obama appointee, has asked the Trump administration to reply to that request by 8 p.m. Thursday.

Tldr the Court ruled the argument for why should the question be added was bad so it got blocked, it may still pass if a better argument is made up
EDIT: It will be officially printed without the question

EDIT 2: according to Trump that was fake news
 
Last edited:
Which he'll lose because most of the people who elected him wanted him to do something about all the fencejumpers voting in their own gibs.
He still has a good chance to win, but it will be more from the fact he is an incumbent and the democrats are going full retard with their candidates than Trump standing on his own merits tbh.
 
Love how the Supreme Court even told him he could argue his case again if he argued it better, then he decided it wasn't worth it.
The court, and that cunt Roberts, absolutely agreed to the legality of the citizenship question.

However, they claimed the Orange Man was acting in bad faith and so voided it on that grounds.

Yes, they invented a new standard of review for themselves to abuse.
 
Which he'll lose because most of the people who elected him wanted him to do something about all the fencejumpers voting in their own gibs.
Definitely, Trump is really sweating when he has to face an entire baseball team of Dems fighting each other over who can say "Fuck Drumpf" the loudest.

Anyway, I have it on good authority from a horde of blue checkmarks that Trump is putting beaners in concentration camps and personally stomping on every LGBT hopper that comes across.
 
Last edited:
In hindsight, it would be trivial to just check Yes on the question even when you're not a citizen because there's no one to say otherwise.
The court ruling on the other hand is not trivial and is actually completely ridiculous where it comes to the basis of their decision, mainly when they say the question is legal but apparently it's voided by being in bad faith. They're a court, evidence is their bread and butter not judging it by the pathos of action. A court ruled by emotion isn't much of a court.
 
Everyone who doesn't have a partisan horse in this game knows this decision is rank bullshit and will somehow never be applied to any establishment-aligned decision.

The fact that it was the liberals plus John "There are no Obama judges, no Trump judges" Roberts says it all.

EDIT: As an addendum, Roberts is why you cannot really say there is a conservative majority on the Court until RBG bites it.
Didn't Roberts make O v H legalise same sex marriage?
 
Didn't Roberts make O v H legalise same sex marriage?

You're thinking of Kennedy. It was basically his way of getting in a last press-positive hurrah before his retirement.

It was sort of like how part of McCain's motivation to grandstand and shoot down the Obamacare repeal was the positive press he knew he'd get.
 
In hindsight, it would be trivial to just check Yes on the question even when you're not a citizen because there's no one to say otherwise.
The court ruling on the other hand is not trivial and is actually completely ridiculous where it comes to the basis of their decision, mainly when they say the question is legal but apparently it's voided by being in bad faith. They're a court, evidence is their bread and butter not judging it by the pathos of action. A court ruled by emotion isn't much of a court.
So, again, what would happen if they included the question anyway? What would be the repercussions of including a perfectly legal question in the census?
 
So, again, what would happen if they included the question anyway? What would be the repercussions of including a perfectly legal question in the census?
It'd be twofold. First, if non-citizens were truthful and didn't say yes to the questions for whatever reason, it will be a good way to determine just how many illegal immigrants are living in the US and the Democrats certainly don't want the public at large to know the true number.
The second big piece to the puzzle is that the census is used for determining how a congressional district is laid out based on population. In 2010 a district with 1 million could potentially end up being in 2020 with the question, a district that's actually 1 million but of them, 150,000 living there are now found to be non-citizens. This would end up skewing the district size as the actual population is now technically 850,000 not 1 million. And for the Dems that could be devastating, since a lot districts they control will be shifted to balance out these shifts since they depend on illegal immigrants to bolster their district populations.

The second point is likely why the Dems were fighting tooth and nail for this question not to appear. Because it'd directly fuck up their voting base altogether and right now, they're fighting for every advantage they can retain. Gerrymandering is what both parties abuse to hell and back and this question would have fucked over the Dems more than the GOP in that regard for sure.
 
God forbid the reason you want political representation properly apportioned (by citizens rather than residents) has anything to do with racism or something. Fuck Roberts.

Roberts is a traitor, I hope you remember your traitors. Deliver them into the hands of left. Let them be killed by those they so liked to defend.
 
How's it go again? A loss for a loss?
snap.jpg
 
Last edited:
How sad is it that I turned out to be the sane one?

Probably why I decided to fuck off and do my own thing
I'm expecting to see A) Antifa faggots keeping anyone conservative/doesn't agree with them from voting by attacking them at the polls. B) People being killed for trying to vote for anything but democraps by antifa faggots or antifa sympathizing weirdos, CNN spinning either events to make it appear the other way around, massive social media misinformation and all kinds of manufactured shit.
 
Back
Top Bottom